This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Originally Posted by teamosil

Even if part of that $53k does go to thinks like tools, a business is still a lot better off in a society where the workers produce so much value that the company can afford to buy expensive tools though, right?

For a point of comparison, how much luck do you think Bill Gates would have had launching Microsoft in Somalia? Not much. The reason is because all the things a society needs to sustain a company like Microsoft exist here, but not there. Those things take money to maintain.

I don't buy the base dollar amount argument. Or rather I think that is an argument why taxes should be MORE progressive, not less. It isn't like Romney created that money. If there were no Mitt Romney, it wouldn't just be like that money didn't exist. Maybe some of it- the money he actually produced with his own actual work. But the vast majority of it would still exist, it'd just be in somebody else's pocket. Bain would have had a different CEO, or some of those companies he shut down would still be paying people's paychecks, or who knows what, but the money would still be out there. So when he pays 15% and somebody else pays 30%, it isn't like we're benefiting from Romney paying 15%, we're losing 15% that we would have gotten in taxes had that other person ended up with the money instead of him.

Well, a partial reroll then. Their advantages relative to the homeless guy are radically diminished without law and order. All their money- which is really just numbers in a computer somewhere- doesn't even necessarily mean anything at all without a system of laws. Probably their only real advantage would be that there would probably be more to barter with in Gates' mansion than the homeless guy has in his cart. But then again, the homeless guy is better at finding food...

I don't know how much my grandmother paid... Safe bet it is a much higher percentage than that although obviously a lower absolute amount.

I support eliminating the sales tax because it is regressive relative to income.

Forgive me not breaking it up by quotes, I'm in the airport at the moment.

On the 53k issue, I still need to reference the CBO, so understand this information is still based on the assumption that the calculations are the same as last time I researched. The problem is that supplying tools, an environment, advertising, and everything else drastically reduces that 53k. The way they make money is by having many people produce the 97k and even if it costs them 96k in supplies, tools, man hours, etc they still make 1k for that worker and have 200 workers. This is an extreme example, but it doesn't mean they have 53k going in their pockets instead of to the employees. The 200k they keep is the advantage of being the owner.

Bill Gates is only one person. He is in the .001% of the country. Using him as an example is flawed. But if we are going to talk about the class of people in the top 1%, there is still a guy named Musa Ahmed Sheikh in that country who made over 12 billion with petroleum engineering. There will always be a top 1% of earners and they will do it by getting the right commodity at the right time. Though, I don't like Bill Gates' tactics, just for a note. I like that a free market gives me the choice to use Android or Linux as an acceptable substitute.

Even if there was no Mitt Romney, there would be someone else in the same tax bracket. The 1% is not the same group of people at all times. Someone has a great idea and moves ahead of someone who was in the 1% all the time. That person would still hold a bunch of wealth and pay the same rates.

As for the 15% vs 30% and such, the dollar amounts really do matter. It's progressive in that when they make more, they pay more. They pay VASTLY more every year. They aren't getting off free. I still have trouble with the very idea that 1% of the people pay 38% percent of the total federal income tax revenue and people are saying it isn't progressive enough. This may have to be an agree to disagree situation.

Personal income tax does not equal corporate income tax for many reasons. Any point I make based on that comparison would become a huge debate. The Amazon point is much more in-depth than a footnote. I would like to see corporate taxes moved largely to income tax since it's currently passed on to the consumer and ends up being a sales tax, which you call regressive.

The reroll hypothetical is too much of an imagination game for a proper debate imo, so I won't get into it except to say your point has some merit, but I don't accept it absolutely.

I wouldn't argue getting rid of sales tax, actually. In fact, I think you and I would probably agree on my basic approach to tax reform, but we'd get caught up in a few details on lines. Let me summarize it and see if you agree. I think all current taxes should be stopped. One single income tax should be implemented for federal and each state can have one. Eliminate all tax breaks. Capital gains is income, too. Income taxes come out of pay for work done or gains on investments. Here's the fun part: progressive is required for this to work. Make it progressive %-wise in brackets. Make a thousand brackets if you want, but the percent calculation is very simple.

I think we would fall out over where the brackets should lie in the details, but we both think it should be progressive and that the current breaks system is ridiculous. Am I correct in this? I hate how much politics and shady numbers come into all these debates when it could be as simple as Buffet pays 17% but his secretary pays 11%. It's clear who contributes what.

Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

I can think of one thing that lowers his effective tax burden if hes a dutiful Mormon as he claims to be, they require a 10% tithe of income. Thats a pretty hefty writeoff.

Maggie said it early in the thread, his property taxes are probably the equivalent of a median income salary, his sales taxes possibly in the same range and as an employer hes got other taxes hes paying as well. Should his effective rate be higher? I dont know without a detailed look at his dedeuctions, income and hedges to taxation.

DO we need to reduce taxation hedges? Absolutely. Start by counting stock options as salary with immediate wage taxes payable on them but (and this one will make the liberals here scream) lower the capital gains--tax them once as income, then largely leave them alone. That ought to shut Buffet the **** up, too. Thats my opinion anyway.

Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

All those unemployed people in S.C. are can really relate with that...

What is your point?
So guess Obama should not make money on books, Pelosi should not make money on stocks.
Here is a clue, most politicians in Congress are better off than the average American.
To harp on one person or one party is plain ignoring the real world.

"

If we have data, let's look at the data. if all we have is opinions let's go with mine

Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

I can think of one thing that lowers his effective tax burden if hes a dutiful Mormon as he claims to be, they require a 10% tithe of income. Thats a pretty hefty writeoff.

Maggie said it early in the thread, his property taxes are probably the equivalent of a median income salary, his sales taxes possibly in the same range and as an employer hes got other taxes hes paying as well. Should his effective rate be higher? I dont know without a detailed look at his dedeuctions, income and hedges to taxation.

DO we need to reduce taxation hedges? Absolutely. Start by counting stock options as salary with immediate wage taxes payable on them but (and this one will make the liberals here scream) lower the capital gains--tax them once as income, then largely leave them alone. That ought to shut Buffet the **** up, too. Thats my opinion anyway.

Not bad. I like the fact it promotes investment. People will still freak out that a hedge fund guy who lives on dividends alone will be making far more.

We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.

Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Um, that plant is alive and well last time I checked. Did you hear something we didn't?

And Boeing didn't actually create any jobs. It just moved them to a state where it could pay workers less. So it's a net loss for workers, and consumer spending. Good for Boeing's shareholders though.

Your statement may not be valid. Cost of living is not equal across the States or even within a State. My income in a farm town (Wray, CO) would allow me live well above the average. I could not survive very well in SF, California. So it boils down is what will your income buy your where you live.

"

If we have data, let's look at the data. if all we have is opinions let's go with mine

Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

Originally Posted by mike2810

What is your point?
So guess Obama should not make money on books, Pelosi should not make money on stocks.
Here is a clue, most politicians in Congress are better off than the average American.
To harp on one person or one party is plain ignoring the real world.

The point is not the money he made, but how he characterized it. He wants to come off as a regular guy and that doesn't work so well when you refer to $374k as "not very much" money -- when it's obviously a ****lot of money to 99% of the people.